Article:		Binary XML, Again
Subject:		Too many words (Kendall has a hammer of his own)
Date:		2003-08-15 13:01:23
From:		jonnie savell
Response to: Too many words
Rather than defining idea, let us define fluff (the absence of idea): "I dissent from several points of XML Orthodoxy because I am by nature, personal inclination, and experience, a dissident ..." Several spots of fluff I think. Too many words I think (and I fear that I have added too many of my own). OK, I got busted for the having made the charge that the demand was ridiculous. "Frankly, I think that's just the bare minimum of doing good research and engineering." Right you are. I was hoping that you would do some of it. I will back off because I have to some good research of my own. I get this eery feeling that this discussion risks missing a lot of territory if it continues to focus exclusively on document wide compression schemes. I like the xsi:type attribute. I think that the schema folks ought to add some built-in primitive types to their collection. I might like to strip from my application any "to string" conversion because I just don't enjoy converting well defined data types to strings. I might not mind converting my language specific data type format to a language neutral data type format, however. Hey, look at me (and stop laughing): ... <balance xsi:type="xsd:big_int">... unreadable stuff ...</balance> ... I avoided converting my data types to strings. I would understand if you felt that I made too big a fuss about this. I too might like more. I would like to tell the validating parser "Hey, ignore the next 16K of data following my <big_data> element. Just make sure that there is a </big_data> tag following the 16K of stuff and that everything is valid after that. So, is this pure noise, or is there some signal?

Previous Message

Up

Next Message

• Too many words (Kendall has a hammer of his own)
  2003-08-15 13:14:28 Kendall Clark